Interesting that they weren't instructed to write "Jesus Christ" just "Jesus." Also it sounds like the point of it was that they were always able to refuse - that's what it sounds like to me anyway. Of course, none of us were there.

Biological Ali:You do realize that there's a massive amount of violence all around the world that occurs solely because it's commanded by various religions, right? I mean, if you were talking strictly about the US, it might be understandable (though still not entirely correct, since religiously motivated violence still does occur even there), but to say that about the world is just hilariously wrong.

No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."

The point is no ONE religious figure should have been singled out. Should have been told to write the name of "whatever figure is important to your faith." Otherwise the "experiment" is worthless. Only teaches anything to people to whom Jesus has meaning.

Are you assuming that all of the atheists in the class would step on the paper? Because that's not an assumption I'm willing to make. I would hesitate (and I'm about as athy as they get), not because I believe in Jesus, but because I "believe in" politeness, and I would not want to offend my classmates. Therefore, the symbol has meaning to me even though I am not a member of that, or any other, religion.

I suspect that you may not have understood what the exercise was intended to teach.

Are you assuming my post had ANYTHING to do with atheists? Point to where it even slightly refers to atheists. The whole point of it was about OTHER faiths most important figures. Mohammed, Buddah, Moses, Zarathustra. Etc. I suppose if you wanna finally recognize Atheism as a form of "faith" and write the name Dawkins, that's cool too, but not at all what I was talking about. I understand exactly what the lesson was intending to teach, do you?

s2s2s2:No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."

There's plenty of religious violence that doesn't have anything to do with "stuff". When the state of Iran hangs two gay teenagers, for instance, it isn't because because the kids had "stuff" that the government wanted.

Dracolich:Russ1642: hawcian: Russ1642: The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.

From the link Happy Hour posted, it seems like the student told the professor he was going to the supervisor and the media and telling them that his (the students) religious freedom was being violated. This is pretty much a veiled threat, anyway (you don't go to the media over something like this unless you're trying to blow it out of proportion). And I'm guessing the kid wasn't exactly being polite at that point, either. The professor feels threatened, tells the kid to leave, kid complains, FAU finds that he threatened a professor and tells him to leave the class and the professor alone until further investigation. Thus, "suspension" from that class.

Now that I can see. He was kicked out of the class for being a complete asshole. Religious people are so used to people being so careful about never offending them that even a discussion on why something is offensive can set them off. His religious faith must be really fragile.

In coming to terms with my own lack of faith, I left a lot of other people's faith shaken. That included 3 Lutheran pastors (one from the seminary), 2 Methodist ministers, 1 Catholic priest, several youth leaders, and countless others. It wasn't like I was keeping score at the time, but in reflection it was a lot. I wanted to believe. I specifically looked to those who were the smartest within my church to find out why they believed. In ending one conversation, they'd often point me to a significant person who inspired them to believe. This eventually lead me to the seminary. What I found there was that those most in touch with studying and teaching the faith had massive doubts with well-constructed rationalizations for not thinking about those doubts. It's wishful thinking in a world filled with contrary evidence. It usually came down to "but people need something to believe in to get by," but in reality they were all too deep into the organization to break free and do the right thing.

And who the HELL are you to decide what is the "right thing" for them? I will never understand that about so many Fark Atheists (capital A intended because for these idiots, unlike most atheists, it IS a religion) What is it that pisses you off or scares you SO much about someone else believing something different than you? Atheists scream so loud about Christians pushing their beliefs on others, but it is perfectly FINE for them to push their non-belief on people? WTF???? As one idiot in this thread said "It's okay to question or ridicule them to make them examine their faith" Question yes. Ridicule no. All you do in that is piss anyone off who isn't already of your own mind. I'm short if you want respect for your choice to not believe you DAMN sure better be prepared to respect someone else's right to believe.

I think that some posters in here could benefit from trying this exercise themselves. If you think the exercise was pointless and meant to target certain individuals, go on, try it. How did you feel when you stepped on it?

I can understand why the professor chose Jesus as opposed to God or Mohammad, or Mom, given the Christian overshadows in American culture. Who is it, primarily that doesn't want gays to marry? Who is it, primarily, that wants to restrict certain healthcare? Must someone be Christian to get elected to higher office in this country? Sometimes this introspection is necessary, especially for the students exactly like this student who would whine and complain to the media about the assignment. Why is it so damned important that someone not ask you to do this? Why is it so damned offensive to you? Why do you see no value in it and see it as completely pointless? If you can get a few words out about it, it wasn't completely pointless, was it? What are you going to do with this knowledge?

That was the whole idea. It's sad that the point / relevancy of the exercise is even being debated on Fark.

Dracolich:It usually came down to "but people need something to believe in to get by," but in reality they were all too deep into the organization to break free and do the right thing.

Eh...Religion (as a supertype) wasn't *just* invented by con men and wasn't *just* forced into people by youth indoctrination or by-the-sword conversions. People invented it, and accepted it, because they did need it.

Of course those of us that don't...well we're just trying to make the world a better place without crushed and oppressed and beaten with other people's psychological crutches.

thefatbasturd:Are you assuming my post had ANYTHING to do with atheists? Point to where it even slightly refers to atheists. The whole point of it was about OTHER faiths most important figures. Mohammed, Buddah, Moses, Zarathustra. Etc. I suppose if you wanna finally recognize Atheism as a form of "faith" and write the name Dawkins, that's cool too, but not at all what I was talking about. I understand exactly what the lesson was intending to teach, do you?

No, I believe you misunderstood FloydA's response.

The point of the exercise was to show how culturalicons can have power. Not personal icons. If the students were allowed to write what mattered most to them, it wouldn't have nearly the impact. One of the points of the lesson was to show that Jesus is so pervasive in our culture that even students who don't recognize him religiously would hesitate before stepping on the paper.

Now, obviously, there will always be students who will step on the paper regardless, but you just need to look at this thread (and FloydA's response to you) to find non-Christians who wouldn't step on the paper for non-religious (cultural and societal) reasons, which was one of the results the lesson intended.

Personalizing it would have taken any kind of comparative/societal aspect away from it. It would have been all about individual symbolism, which wasn't the point.

ginandbacon:My understanding of this lesson was that it (the way this particular teacher decided to implement it) focused on the the word Jesus. Which would have singled out any devout Christian or anyone with any respect for anyone who followed that faith. It was a sloppy and useless way to address religious symbolism or religion.

The exercise quoted in TFA was not about religion.

""Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper," the lesson reads. "Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

It was desired that most students would not stomp on the word, despite being ordered to do so by an authority figure. That resistance is what highlights the importance of symbols. The students are asked to "think about it for a moment" in order to heighten the importance of the symbol. The word, "Jesus," was chosen because the authors assumed the classroom would contain a high percentage of students to whom that symbol is quite important.

Everything about the exercise is designed to demonstrate the power of symbols, not to disparage religion in general or any particular religion.

BarkingUnicorn:FloydA: ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: It was a discussion about symbols

That oddly only focused on one symbol.

That was a pedagogical necessity. The lesson (whatever its merits or lack thereof) would not have worked if each student had to respond to a different symbol.

"Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Why wouldn't that work if each student used a different symbol?

Because it would introduce an unknown and uncontrolled set of variables in a thought-experiment that's already dealing with variable factors. If anything, using Jesus's name is an acknowledgement of the power and respect that particular symbol carries, not an attack on anyone's religion.

I've met plenty of thoughtful, introspective religious folks of various faiths, Christian and otherwise. I can't imagine any of them having problems with the premise of this exercise, since the focus was on why the students would choose not to step on the paper and the significance of the symbol within our culture. However, dummies gonna dumb, I guess, as this thread amply shows.

J. Frank Parnell:TheBigJerk: Professor's response; "go home kid, try to understand what you just proved."

But it's a shiatty experiment.

As i already tried to illustrate amid the rolling sea of derp here, people would not take part in such a thing if it involved anything they care about. Another example is If you put a sports team name on a piece of paper and told a fan of that team to stomp on it. They would also refuse to do so. It has nothing to do with religion.

Why? The word "Jesus" isn't Jesus, and the name of a sports team isn't the team. If you're teaching symbology, this is an excellent demonstration of the power of symbols.

FloydA:There is a substantive difference between thinking "he's a good guy" and "bowing and scraping" or "treating him as a godhead." I think Sir Arthur Guinness, Alan Turing, and Sir Thomas Crapper were great men, because each of them invented something that makes my life better, but I don't worship any of them.

ciberido:FloydA: There is a substantive difference between thinking "he's a good guy" and "bowing and scraping" or "treating him as a godhead." I think Sir Arthur Guinness, Alan Turing, and Sir Thomas Crapper were great men, because each of them invented something that makes my life better, but I don't worship any of them.

Quite a lot of people do worship Crapper at his Porcelain Throne.

Had to look that up. Apparently he didn't invent the toilet but, almost as good, he invented the ballcock.

Ahvren:The point of the exercise was to show how culturalicons can have power. Not personal icons. If the students were allowed to write what mattered most to them, it wouldn't have nearly the impact. One of the points of the lesson was to show that Jesus is so pervasive in our culture that even students who don't recognize him religiously would hesitate before stepping on the paper.

Exactly. I could write the most important people/things in my life on a piece of paper - , my mom's (who passed away) name, my boyfried's name, my cats' names, my band's name. My own name, even. Why would anyone who isn't me (or related to my boyfriend or me) have any issue stomping on a piece of paper that said "Jason"? As personally important to me all of the above are, they are not pervasive influences or icons in our culture. That is why they chose "Jesus." Even atheists recognize who Jesus is. Christians worship him. Jews acknowledge and wait for his return. Muslims consider him a Prophet. Agnostics certainly feel something. And even many atheists will say "there is nothing wrong with the general message of Jesus."

I don't understand how people can't see the point of this illustration and how interesting and valuable the ensuing discussion should be, beyond someone throwing a hissy fit of epic proportions that this exercise was even proposed. (Am I still correct that nobody was forced to step on the paper? I'd love to know how religious beliefs were violated here....)

The object of the exercise was not to desecrate a symbol. It was to make the students investigate their relationship with symbols.

He used Jesus because Christianity is the dominant cultural influence in America. Using a minority symbol would not have the same impact, and would actually be more likely to be interpreted as sincere desecration.

... But of course many political Christians actually do imagine themselves as a persecuted minority, so the professor should have seen this coming.America is not some homogeneous culture that you can make such broad statements about. This is a massive country with 300+ million people across 3.8 million sq miles. Do you really think the dominant culture the in Bible Belt is the same as Hollywood or New York? Christianity most certainly is NOT the dominant cultural influence in a University. Therefore, by your own argument stomping on Jesus would be MORE likely to be interpreted as sinceredesecration than, say, stomping on the name MLK Jr. or perhaps Darwin.

Biological Ali:s2s2s2: No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."

There's plenty of religious violence that doesn't have anything to do with "stuff". When the state of Iran hangs two gay teenagers, for instance, it isn't because because the kids had "stuff" that the government wanted.

For the purposes of this report, hate crimes-or bias-motivated crimes-are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on hisor her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.

I think there's room in there for non-violent hate crimes to exist, WDYT?

s2s2s2:Biological Ali: s2s2s2: No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."

There's plenty of religious violence that doesn't have anything to do with "stuff". When the state of Iran hangs two gay teenagers, for instance, it isn't because because the kids had "stuff" that the government wanted.

True. We all know only the religious are homophobes!

You know, you don't have to keep posting if you've no longer got a point.

For the purposes of this report, hate crimes-or bias-motivated crimes-are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on hisor her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.

I think there's room in there for non-violent hate crimes to exist, WDYT?

Good catch.

Lol at the lad trying to teach ME about "Hate Crimes".

I learned from the masters - the originating authors of the very CONCEPT of "Hate Crimes" in the United States:

I'm so liberal I label myself a "European socialist", and my wife is a tenured professor. Unsurprisingly, I'm also an atheist. For the record, Deandre Poole's actions fill me with disgust.

The story called him "associate professor", which would mean he has tenure. So don't be upset when he doesn't get fired. If we look him up 2 years from now, he'll probably be working at a community college anyway. Universities have 400 years experience in punishing professors who screw up this badly.

For the purposes of this report, hate crimes-or bias-motivated crimes-are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on hisor her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.

I think there's room in there for non-violent hate crimes to exist, WDYT?

That depends if "Violence against Property," like vandalism or arson, are still violence.

I would suggest that they are. The more I think of it, I can't even say what a "non-violent hate crime" would look like. Bank embezzlement against black people? Anti-Jewish drug possession?

The important thing here is, Amos Quito was completely wrong about everything, and hopefully he knows that now if he didn't before.

Your Boobies asked the question if discussing the action of stepping on a paper with "JESUS" written on it constitutes a hate crime. If you're still confused on that point, then very clearly someone needs to teach you about the legislation, "lol"ing or not.

Bit'O'Gristle:TerminalEchoes: ginandbacon: I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

/You do realize, you just said you're an atheist, and that jesus was a great man in the same sentence dont you?//bangs head on desk.

I question not only your reading comprehension but your liberal credentials. I think, in fact, that you are full of shiat in addition to being an idiot. But please, explain to us how the professor "screwed up."